Obama Administration Threatens to Veto House NDAA – UPDATE

The Obama Administration issued its Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on the House version of the FY2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) today.  The bill, H.R. 4909, is before the House Rules Committee at the moment and, subject to a rule being granted, will reach the House floor for debate this week.  The SAP states that the President’s advisers will recommend that he veto the bill if changes are not made.  Such threats have become common and last year the President followed through, although a compromise was ultimately reached.

The main obstacle to last year’s NDAA was funding.  The President vetoed the first FY2016 NDAA that cleared Congress, but after a top-level budget agreement was reached in October, a revised version was passed and it received the President’s signature,

Funding is also one of the major issues this time, although the 17-page SAP has a very long list of complaints.  The funding issue this year is because the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) decided to redirect $18 billion from the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) account — which pays for operations in Afghanistan, for example — into activities that are supposed to be part of DOD’s base budget, not the special OCO funds that do not count against the budget caps.  That way HASC can spend more money for defense without exceeding the caps, but it means that the OCO account has only enough money to pay for American troops fighting overseas until April 2017, not through the end of FY2017.  Whoever becomes President in January will have to immediately request a supplemental appropriations bill to keep the troops funded.  “By gambling with warfighting funds, the bill risks the safety of our men and women fighting to keep America safe, undercuts stable planning and efficient use of taxpayer dollars, dispirits troops and their families, baffles our allies, and emboldens out enemies,” the SAP asserts.

From a space policy standpoint, the SAP also criticizes HASC’s actions regarding the Russian RD-180 rocket engine issue. HASC adopted the position held by the Administration and the United Launch Alliance (ULA) that 18 more RD-180s are needed to keep ULA’s Atlas V rockets available through the early 2020s, but retains some restrictions on how the money can be spent.  Although the language in this bill is more flexible than in the last two NDAAs, the Administration still objects.  The debate is over whether the money Congress is providing to develop a U.S. alternative to the RD-180 may be spent only on a new engine, or on other parts of a new launch system.  Previous NDAAs forbid using the money for anything other than the engine.  This bill has a modified version of that prohibition that allows up to 25 percent of the research and development funds to be spent on a new launch vehicle, upper stage, strap-on motor and related infrastructure.  The amendment containing that language was offered by Rep. Adam Smith (D-WA), the top Democrat on HASC, and adopted by voice vote at the very end of the 16-hour markup on April 27-28.

The SAP has this to say about it:

Rocket Propulsion System Development Program: The Administration appreciates the amended language to section 1608 of the FY 2015 NDAA to authorize up to 18 RD-180 engines, ensuring a necessary and cost-effective bridge to American-made launch services. However, the Administration strongly objects to section 1601, which would place restrictions on the funds to eliminate the Nation’s use of these engines for national security space launches. The Committee’s approach overemphasizes one component of a launch vehicle and, in doing so, risks the successful and timely fielding of new domestic launch systems. The Administration is committed to developing new American-made propulsion systems as part of these new launch vehicles, but this should be done in accordance with well-accepted systems engineering principles and not arbitrary funding allocations.

The SAP also rejects a provision that requires the Government to obtain rights and technical data about any new rocket propulsion system.

The Administration also strongly objects to the direction in section 1601 requiring the acquisition of Government purpose rights and technical data for any new rocket propulsion system. Complying with this direction is not feasible as it would likely require re-negotiation of the current development contracts, thereby delaying the delivery of the new domestic capabilities beyond 2019. Pursuing such robust data rights would also undermine the very nature of the public-private partnerships, require significantly more Government funding, and risk further industry investment and participation. The Administration’s public-private partnerships are successfully leveraging willing private investment to develop commercially viable launch vehicles, and this has already saved taxpayers nearly $200 million, while maintaining access to the data that the Government needs. These partnerships could save taxpayers more than $500 million through 2019 and deliver valuable capabilities for the Nation and benefits to our economy faster than the Committee’s approach. 

The House Rules Committee met this evening to begin discussion about the rule that will govern floor debate on the bill.  The meeting continues tomorrow (Tuesday) afternoon where the committee will decide which of the 372 amendments that have been submitted will be allowed on the floor for debate.  The rule dictates how much time each side (pro and con) will have to debate the bill in its entirety and each of the permitted amendments and sets other conditions, such as waiving points of order.

The expectation is that the committee will approve a rule tomorrow and floor debate will begin on Wednesday.  [UPDATE; Word as of this morning (Tuesday) is that debate will begin later today.] Several of the submitted amendments deal with the RD-180/U.S. replacement issues.

The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has approved its version of the bill and took a very different approach to RD-180s, so the debate is certain to continue no matter what happens in this bill.

The SAP also raises objections to two other space-related provisions in the bill.

As currently written, the bill requires DOD to initiate concept definition, design, research, development and engineering evaluation and testing for a space-based intercept and defeat missile defense layer and space test bed.  The SAP says the Administration appreciates congressional support for its missile defense program, but there is “no requirement for a space-based intercept and there are concerns about the technical feasibility and long-term affordability of interceptors in space.”

The bill would also transfer from the Air Force to the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) responsibility for some space-based environmental monitoring missions.  The committee states in its report on the bill that it is concerned about the Air Force’s lack of planning, coordination, and execution of activities to meet space-based environmental monitoring requirements.  It notes that the Defense Meteorological Satellite Program (DMSP) originated in NRO and was later transferred to the Air Force and wants the same arrangement now “in which the NRO develops the program and then transfers it back to the Air Force after it is in operation.”  The SAP states that the entire DOD weather enterprise should be managed “as an integrated mission” and not split up.